pl_matchweek_matches

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral information. It states it returns matches with a pagination structure, which suggests a read-only operation, but does not disclose side effects, authentication, or error handling. The return format is provided, which is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description consists of two concise sentences: the first for purpose, the second for return format. Every sentence serves a clear function without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is inadequate. It omits explanations for required parameters cid and sid, and lacks details on pagination, which are necessary for an agent to use the tool correctly without external knowledge.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the four parameters (mw, cid, sid, limit) beyond implying mw is the matchweek. The required cid and sid are left completely unexplained, failing to add meaning beyond the schema's property names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it returns matches for one matchweek and explicitly mentions it is an alternative to pl_matches with a matchweek query parameter, distinguishing it from siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies usage for retrieving matches by matchweek as an alternative to pl_matches?matchweek=, but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it compare with other sibling tools like pl_match or pl_match_events.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.